Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cour Pénale Internat ionale
Internat ional Criminal Court
/ \
Original: English No. ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 Date: 19 August 2011
THE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before: Judge Erkki Kourula, Presiding Judge Judge Sang-Hyun Song Judge Akua Kuenyehia Judge Anita Usacka Judge Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko
SITUATION IN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
IN THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTOR v. JEAN-PIERRE BEMBA GOMBO
Public Redacted Version
Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial
Chamber HI of 27 June 2011 entitled "Decision on Applications for Provisional Release"
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 1/39
^bC
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 1/39 RH T OA7
Judgment to be notified in accordance with regulation 31 of the Regulations of the Court to:
The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for the Defence Ms Fatou Bensouda, Deputy Prosecutor Mr Liriss Nkwebe Mr Fabricio Guariglia Mr Aimé Kilolo-Musamba
Legal Representatives of Victims Mr Assingambi Zarambaud
REGISTRY Registrar Ms Silvana Arbia
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 2/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 2/39 RH T OA7
The Appeals Chamber of the Intemational Criminal Court,
In the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber
III entitled "Decision on Applications for Provisional Release" of 27 June 2011 (ICC-
01/05-01/08-1565-Conf),
After deliberation,
By majority, Judge Usacka partly dissenting,
Delivers the following
JUDGMENT 1. The "Decision on Applications of Provisional Release" pursuant to mle
118 (2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence is reversed to the extent
that the Trial Chamber dismissed Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo's request
for interim release to [REDACTED].
2. The Trial Chamber is directed to reconsider Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba
Gombo's request for interim release to [REDACTED] in light of the
present judgment. Until, and subject to, the Trial Chamber's decision of
the matter, Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo shall remain in detention.
3. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
I. KEY FINDINGS 1. If a Chamber is considering conditional release and a State has indicated its
general willingness and ability to accept a detained person and enforce conditions, the
Chamber must seek observations from that State as to its ability to enforce specific
conditions identified by the Chamber.
2. Depending on the circumstances, the Chamber may have to seek further
information from the State if it finds that the State's observations are insufficient to
enable the Chamber to make an informed decision.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 3/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 3/39 RH T OA7
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Proceedings before the Trial Chamber 3. On 3 May 2011, Mr Bemba filed the "Application for the interim release of Mr
Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo" (hereinafter: "First Request") before Trial Chamber III
(hereinafter: "Trial Chamber"), in which he requested to be granted interim release to
the territory of the Kingdom of Belgium.
4. On 6 June 2011, Mr Bemba filed the "Additional Request for the interim release
of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo subsequent to the letter of guarantee by a State
provided by [REDACTED]"^ (hereinafter: "Second Requesf'). Mr Bemba applied for
interim release to [REDACTED] both during the judicial recess and for periods of
time in which the Chamber would not sit for three consecutive days." Mr Bemba
annexed two letters to the Second Request: one from his lawyer to [REDACTED]
regarding his possible interim release to [REDACTED] (hereinafter: "Mr Bemba's
Letter"), and [REDACTED] response thereto^ (hereinafter: "[REDACTED] Letter").
5. On 8 June 2011, the Trial Chamber issued the "Decision requesting
observations on the 'Requête ampliative de Mise en liberté provisoire de M. Jean-
Pierre Bemba Gombo suite à la lettre de garantie étatique émanant de
[REDACTED]'", inviting [REDACTED] to submit its observations on the Second
Request (hereinafter: "Decision Requesting Observations on the Second Request").
6. On 10 June 2011, Mr Bemba filed the "Extremely urgent application for an
exeat from the detention centre to allow Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo to perform his
civic duties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo"^ (hereinafter: "Third Requesf')
in which Mr Bemba requested permission to leave the United Nations Detention
Centre for approximately 17 hours to travel to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(hereinafter: "DRC") to register for the upcoming elections.
* ICC-01/05-01/08-1387-Conf-tENG. The "Corrigendum to Application for the interim release of Mr Jean-Pien-e Bemba Gombo", ICC-01/05-01/08-1387-Conf-Corr-tENG, was filed on 3 May 2011. All references in this judgment are to the corrigendum. ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1387-Conf-Con--tENG, paras 10-24. MCC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-tENG. ^ Second Request, para. 19. ^ Annex B to Second Request, 6 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-AnxB-tENG, pp. 3-5. ^ Annex A to Second Request, 6 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-AnxA-tENG. ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf ^ICC-01/05-01/08-1501-Conf-tENG.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 4/39
ÂK
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 4/39 RH T OA7
7. On 20 June 2011, [REDACTED] filed its observations to the Second Request
(hereinafter: "[REDACTED] Observations").
8. On 27 June 2011, the Trial Chamber rendered the "Decision on Applications for
Provisional Release"^^ (hereinafter: "Impugned Decision"), rejecting all three requests
for interim release.
B. Proceedings before the Appeals Chamber 9. On 29 June 2011, Mr Bemba filed the "Notification d'Appel de la Défense
contre la décision de la Chambre de Première Instance III du 27 Juin 2011 intitulée
'Decision on Applications for Provisional Release'''^^ (hereinafter: "Notice of
Appeal").
10. On 1 July 2011, Mr Bemba filed the "Document in support of Defence Appeal
against Trial Chamber Ill's decision on Applications for Provisional Release, dated 27
July 2011"^^ (hereinafter: "Document in Support of the Appeal").
11. On 5 July 2011, the Appeals Chamber invited the victims who wished to
participate in the proceedings to file their applications for participation by 7 July
2011. ^
12. On 7 July 2011, the legal representatives of victims, Mr Assingambi Zarambaud
and Ms Douzima-Lawson, applied for leave to participate in the proceedings on
behalf of the victims they represent. "
13. On 11 July 2011, the Prosecutor filed the "Prosecution's Response to the
'Document in support of Defence Appeal against Trial Chamber Ill's decision on
Applications for Provisional Release, dated 27 June 2011'"^^ (hereinafter:
^ Annex 2 to "Report of the Registry on the Implementation of Decision ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf', 20 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1556-Conf-Anx2-tENG. ° ICC-01/05-01/08-1565-Conf.
" ICC-01/05-01/08-1573-Conf * ICC-01/05-01/08-1586-Conf. ^ "Order on applications for victim participation", ICC-01/05-01/08-1587-Conf. ^ "Application of the Legal Representative of Victims, Mr Zarambaud Assingambi, for leave to participate in the appellate proceedings", ICC-01/05-01/08-15 89-Conf-tENG; "Response of the Legal Representative of Victims to the Order on applications for victim participation'', ICC-01/05-01/08-1588-Conf-tENG. ^ "Prosecution's Response to the 'Document in support of Defence Appeal against Trial Chamber Ill's decision on Applications for Provisional Release, dated 27 June 2011'", ICC-01/05-01/08-1592-Conf
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 5/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 5/39 RH T OA7
"Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal"). On the same
day, he filed his consolidated response to the applications by the victims for
participation submitting that he did not oppose their participation.^^ Mr Bemba did not
file a response to the applications.
14. On 14 July 2011, the Appeals Chamber, by majority, granted the victims
represented by Mr Assingambi Zarambaud (hereinafter: "Legal Representative of the
Victims") leave to participate in the proceedings but rejected the application filed by
Ms Douzima-Lawson. ^
15. On 15 July 2011, the Legal Representative of the Victims filed the "Application
for provision of the French version of the Defence's appeal document and the appeal
decision of 14 July 2011, and for an extension of time for the undersigned Legal
Representative to file his observations"^^ (hereinafter: "Request for Extension of
Time").
16. On 19 July 2011, Mr Bemba filed a response to the Request for Extension of
Time requesting the Appeals Chamber to dismiss the request for failing to establish
"good cause" as required by regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations of the Court. ^
17. On that same day, the Appeals Chamber rendered the "Decision on 'Requête
aux fins de communication de la version française du document d'appel de la défense,
ainsi que de la décision d'appel du 14 juillet 2011 et subséquemment de prorogation
du délai de dépôt des observations du Représentant légal soussigné'"^^ (hereinafter:
"Decision Rejecting Request for Extension of Time"), rejecting the Request for
Extension of Time and reserving its reasons for the judgment. Also on that day, the
Legal Representative of Victims filed the "Observations of the Legal Representative,
Mr Assingambi Zarambaud, on 'Document of Defense Appeal against Trial Chamber
Ill's Decision on Applications of Provisional Release Dated 27 June 2011' submitted
^ "Consolidated Prosecution's response to requests by victims to participate in appeal against the 'Decision on Applications for Provisional Release' (ICC-01/05-01/08-1565-Conf)", ICC-01/05-01/08-1591-Conf ^ "Decision on the Participation of Victims in the Appeal against the 'Decision on Applications for Provisional Release' of Trial Chamber III", ICC-01/05-01/08-1597-Conf Judge Song filed a partly dissenting opinion to the decision on 1 August 2011, lCC-01/05-01/08-1619-Conf ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1602-Conf-tENG, paras 15-16. ^ "Defence response to the 14 July 2011 application of the Legal Representative of Victims, ICC-01/05-01/08-1602-Conf-Anx OA ", ICC-01/05-01/08-1608-Conf-tENG, para. 12. ° ICC-01/05-01/08-1607-Conf
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 6/39 ^ < L
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 6/39 RH T OA7
by the Defence for Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo" ^ (hereinafter: "Victims'
Observations").
18. On 26 July 2011, Mr Bemba and the Prosecutor filed their respective responses
to the Victims' Observations. ^
19. On 4 August 2011, the "Transmission of the Registry of the observations of
[REDACTED]" was transmitted to the Appeals Chamber, annexing [REDACTED]
communication to the Court regarding Mr Bemba's request for interim release to that
country^^ (hereinafter: "Transmission by the Registrar of 4 August 2011").
III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
A. Request for abridgment of time and "status conference" 20. In Mr Bemba's Notice of Appeal, he requested the Appeals Chamber to shorten
the time for deciding the appeal by either abridging the time limit for the filing of
written submissions or convening a "status conference" for the parties and
participants to present oral arguments. " He submitted that the registration procedure
for the elections in the DRC was closing on 7 July 2011 and noted that the Court
recess was to begin on 17 July 2011. ^ He argued that time limits should be abridged
in order for the Appeals Chamber to render a decision on his interim release, if
possible, before the begirming of July 2011 or at the latest before the Court's three-
week recess on 17 July 2011, submitting that his right of appeal would otherwise
become moot. ^
21. Under regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations of the Court, a Chamber may extend
or reduce a time limit if good cause is shown. The Appeals Chamber found that Mr
Bemba had not established good cause for the abridgment of time in this case. The
Appeals Chamber noted that in the Notice of Appeal, Mr Bemba did not substantiate
^MCC-01/05-01/08-1609-Conf-tENG. ^ "Defence response to the 'Observations du Représentant légal Maître Zarambaud Assingambi sur le «Document of Défense Appeal against Trial Chambre Ill's Decision on Applications of Provisional Release Dated 27 June 2011» Présenté par la Défense du Sieur Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo'", 26 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1612-Conf; "Prosecution's Response to the Observations of Victims' Legal Representative Mr Zarambaud Assingambi to the Defence Appeal Trial Chamber Ill's Decision on Applications for Provisional Release (ICC-01/05-01/08-1609-Conf)", ICC-01/05-01/08-1613-Conf ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1621-Conf, dated 3 August 2011 and registered on 4 August 2011. ^ Notice of Appeal, para 12. ^ Notice of Appeal, para. 9. ^ Notice of Appeal, paras 10, 13.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 7/39 ^ <
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 7/39 RH T OA7
in any way that the time limit for voter registration in the DRC was 7 July 2011. The
Appeals Chamber noted furthermore that the Notice of Appeal requested the interim
release to [REDACTED] "for the Court recesses and all periods where the Chamber
will not sit for at least three consecutive days, including long weekends".
Accordingly, Mr Bemba's argument that his right of appeal would be rendered moot
if a judgment on the appeal was not issued in advance of 17 July 2011 was
unpersuasive. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber decided not to abridge the time
limits for the filing of written submissions. For the same reasons, the Appeals
Chamber did not consider it necessary to hold an oral hearing in the present appeal.
B. Reasons for Decision Rejecting Request for Extension of Time
22. In its Decision Rejecting Request for Extension of Time, the Appeals Chamber
rejected the application by the Legal Representative of Victims to extend the time
limit to submit observations in response to the Document in Support of the Appeal.
The Legal Representative of Victims had requested the Appeals Chamber to (1) grant
the Legal Representative of Victims an extension of time to submit his observations
on the present appeal; (2) provide a French version of its Decision on the Participation
of Victims since this decision states that it was "Done in English and French"; and (3)
order Mr Bemba to send a French version of his Document in Support of the
Appeal. ^
23. The Legal Representative of Victims' principal request is for an extension of
time based on his lack of access to French versions of the Decision on the
Participation of Victims and Document in Support of the Appeal. As stated above,
regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations of the Court allows the Chamber to extend or
reduce a time limit if good cause is shown. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the
Legal Representative of Victims did not establish good cause. The Appeals Chamber
noted that he did not provide reasons in support of his request. He merely requested
French versions of the aforementioned documents and an extension of time to prepare
his appeal submission. His arguments as to why he should receive French translations
of the Decision on the Participation of Victims and the Document in Support of the
^ Notice of Appeal, para 15. ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1607-Conf ^ Request for Extension of Time, paras 15-16.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 8/39 .
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 8/39 RH T OA7
Appeal at the time of filing were unpersuasive. The fact that Appeals Chamber's
decisions are "[d]one in English and French" does not signify that both versions will
be provided at the time of filing but rather that there will be translation into either
language. Similarly, in accordance with regulation 39 (1) of the Regulations of the
Court, Mr Bemba could file the Document in Support of the Appeal in English or
French, the two working languages of the Court (article 50 (2) of the Statute). He
decided to file in it English, and was not obliged to also file it in French.
24. For the reasons listed above, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Request for
Extension of Time in its entirety.
C. Transmission by the Registrar of 4 August 2011 25. In the Transmission by the Registrar of 4 August 2011, the Registrar transmitted
to the Appeals Chamber [REDACTED] communication to the Court regarding the
conditions of Mr Bemba's release. This filing was not available to the Trial Chamber
at the time of its consideration of Mr Bemba's requests for interim release and the
Appeals Chamber has not considered it for the purposes of the present appeal.
IV. MERITS 26. Mr Bemba appeals the Impugned Decision with respect to the Second and Third
Requests but does not appeal the Impugned Decision with respect to the First Request.
He advances three grounds of appeal.
A. First ground of appeal 27. As his first ground of appeal, Mr Bemba contends that the Trial Chamber
misappreciated the meaning of, and weight given to, [REDACTED] Letter and
[REDACTED] Observations, and as such, erred in concluding that there was the
possibility that he would abscond if granted interim release to that country. ^
7. Procedural history and relevant part of the Impugned Decision
28. In Mr Bemba's Letter, he inquired whether it was possible for [REDACTED] to
"guarantee his appearance [at trial], specifically through a monitoring system in the
^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 3.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 9/39 , - ^ ^ ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 9/39 RH T OA7
event that he is granted release [...] into [[REDACTED]] territory".^^ That letter also
specifically requested [REDACTED] to confirm its willingness to
(1) do everything in its power to provide for the security and constant monitoring of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo during his stay on [its] territory in the event of his interim release, ensuring that he does not evade justice;
(2) inform the Intemational Criminal Court through the appropriate channel whether Mr Bemba has fulfilled any obligation imposed upon him to report in person to the competent authority according to a set schedule;
(3) immediately report to the Court any violation or attempted violation of the conditions governing his release pursuant to mle 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and take the necessary measures to effect his retum to the United Nations detention centre in The Hague.
(4) ensure that the accused returns to the Netherlands to appear before the Intemational Criminal Court upon an order to this effect by the Court, and transfer the accused into the custody of the Dutch authorities along with his passport and other travel documents. ^
29. In [REDACTED] Letter, [REDACTED] informed Mr Bemba that "the
competent authorities of [REDACTED] [had] granted [his] requesf' and noted that
"the practical arrangements that would apply in the event of Mr Bemba's provisional
release will be made known to [Mr Bemba] and to the Court as soon as practicable."^^
30. In the Decision Requesting Observations on Mr Bemba's Second Request, the
Trial Chamber invited [REDACTED] to submit observations as to whether:
(i) there would be any legal impediment for Mr Bemba to enter and leave the tenitory of [REDACTED], should he be conditionally released by the Chamber during the duration of the Court's judicial recess and/or periods where the Chamber does not sit for at least three consecutive days, including long weekends; and
(ii) [REDACTED] would be in a position to impose one or more of the conditions listed in Rule 119 of the Rules, should the Chamber order the interim release of Mr Bemba on the territory of [REDACTED].^"^
31. In [REDACTED] Observations, [REDACTED] informed the Trial Chamber
that
^^MrBemba'sLetter, p. 4. ^ Mr Bemba's Letter, pp. 4-5. ^ [REDACTED] Letter, p. 2. ^ Decision Requesting Observations on Mr Bemba's Second Request, para. 9 (d).
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 10/39 .
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 10/39 RH T OA7
[T]here is no legal impediment to Mr Bemba's entry into or departure from [REDACTED] territory in the event of his interim release during judicial recess and periods of at least three (3) consecutive days when the Court will not be in session, including long weekends [and that]
[[REDACTED]] is able to implement one or more of the conditions set forth in mle 119 of the Rules in the event the Court decides to order the interim release of Mr Bemba into the tenitory of [REDACTED];
[A]ccordingly, it does not object to the interim release of Mr Jean-Piene Bemba Gombo.^^
32. In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber found that Mr Bemba remained a
"flight risk" and concluded that his detention was necessary to ensure his appearance
at trial." ^ The Trial Chamber made this finding on the basis of (1) the gravity of the
charges against Mr Bemba; (2) the fact that the charges have been confirmed; (3) the
potential for a substantial sentence in case of conviction; and (4) the disclosure of
incriminatory evidence against him.^^ The Trial Chamber also found that Mr Bemba's
network of intemational contacts, his past and present political and financial resources
provided him with the means to abscond. The Trial Chamber infened from the
willingness of Mr Bemba's friends and family to cover the costs of his monitoring
that, if released, he could muster the resources to abscond.
33. Regarding [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations, the Trial
Chamber found that:
[REDACTED] position [did] constitute a new circumstance bearing on the likelihood of the accused returning to trial [...] However, [REDACTED] brief letter and its equally succinct submission to this Chamber convey little more than a general willingness to accept the accused into [REDACTED] territory and do not specify which of mle 119 (l) 's conditions [REDACTED] would be able to implement.^^
34. The Trial Chamber also found that "[c]ritically, [REDACTED] does not
guarantee to ensure [Mr Bemba's] retum to the seat of the Court if he is released into
[REDACTED] tenitory"."^ The Trial Chamber weighed [REDACTED] assurances
against other factors relevant to Mr Bemba's detention and found that article 58 (1)
^ [REDACTED] Observations, p. 2. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 55, 61. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 55. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 56. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 11/39 -7é<
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 11/39 RH T OA7
(b) (i) continued to be met because there was "a meaningful risk that if provisionally
released into the territory of the [REDACTED], the accused would not retum to
complete his trial".^^
2. Mr Bemba's submissions
35. Mr Bemba avers that the Trial Chamber's findings under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of
the Statute should be reversed. He asserts that the Trial Chamber's assessment of
[REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations was based on a
"misapprehension of the extent of the guarantees provided"."*^ In his submission, the
Trial Chamber's conclusion that [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED]
Observations merely conveyed a "general willingness to accept the accused into
[REDACTED] territory, and did not specify which of Rule 119 (l) 's conditions
[REDACTED] would be able to implemenf ' was enoneous."^^ He states that had the
Trial Chamber given appropriate weight to the [REDACTED] assurances, it would
not have concluded that he remains a "flight risk" "
36. Mr Bemba further asserts that the Trial Chamber erred by (1) failing to wait for
information from [REDACTED] regarding the "practical arrangements" it undertook
to put in place in case of Mr Bemba's interim release;"*^ (2) failing to ask the
authorities of [REDACTED] for further information pertaining to its guarantees;"*^ (3)
failing to consider the credibility of [REDACTED] guarantee;"*^ (4) rejecting his
request for a status conference to discuss the possibility of his release to a third
state; and (5) relying on other factors that did not support the Chamber's finding that
he was a flight risk. 49
37. Turning to the other alleged errors in the Impugned Decision, Mr Bemba
contends that the factors relied on by the Chamber do not demonstrate that he is a
"flight risk" when weighed against other factors which demonstrate a lack of a desire
^ Impugned Decision, para. 61. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 4. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 8. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 13. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 12. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 12. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 14. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 12. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 15-19.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 12/39 ^ ^ ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 12/39 RH T OA7
to abscond.^ First, he submits that the Trial Chamber merely referred to the existence
of an intemational network of contacts without substantiating the existence of such
contacts.^^ Second, he argues that it was unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to infer
from the willingness of his family and friends to cover the costs of security and
monitoring if he were released that he had access to enough resources to abscond.^^
Lastly, he contends that the Trial Chamber's reliance on his "past and present
position" as a means to abscond is undermined by the fact that he has an "apparent
desire to live as a public figure rather than as a fugitive".^^ Therefore, in his view, the
Trial Chamber placed "undue weight on the considerations of [his] unnamed
'intemational contacts', his ability to 'muster resources' and his 'past and present
position' when balanced against other factors negating his risk of flighf'.^"^
3. The Prosecutor's submissions
38. The Prosecutor argues that [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED]
Observations did not constitute a "State guarantee" since [REDACTED] did not
"identify any measure to monitor Mr Bemba's stay in [sic] [REDACTED] soil or
guarantee his retum at trial".^^ He also asserts that [REDACTED] Observations did
not specify any condition that [REDACTED] was willing and able to enforce.^^ The
Prosecutor submits that the Appeals Chamber's jurispmdence indicates that
guarantees are effective if States specify conditions and their capacity to enforce
them.^^ Therefore, in his view, the Trial Chamber committed no error because
[REDACTED] did not demonstrate its ability to enforce the conditions under mle 119 CO
(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. He also avers that the Trial Chamber
balanced [REDACTED] assurances against other relevant factors to conclude that
there was a risk that Mr Bemba would abscond if released.^^
39. With regard to the other enors alleged by Mr Bemba, the Prosecutor submits
that Mr Bemba's arguments should be dismissed because they merely contest the
° Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 15. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 16. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 17. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 18. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 19. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 26. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 30.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 13/39 - ^ <
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 13/39 RH T OA7
Trial Chamber's balancing exercise but do not identify any enor.^^ As to Mr Bemba's
argument that the Trial Chamber failed to support its factual findings, the Prosecutor
recalls the Appeals Chamber's previous jurispmdence^^ and states that the Chamber
did not have to take a decision ab initio or enter new findings on factors decided in
prior mlings or entertain arguments addressed in previous mlings. He contends that
the Chamber only had to assess whether the circumstances that applied to prior
mlings still existed and weigh them against all relevant information.^^ Thus, in his
view, the Trial Chamber did not err in this respect.
4. Observations of the victims and responses thereto
40. The Legal Representative of Victims argues that the assurances provided by
[REDACTED] were inadequate and lacked credibility.^^
41. Mr Bemba argues that the Victims' Observations should be dismissed as they
do not address the specific enors of law and fact raised in the Document in Support of
the Appeal.^ Mr Bemba notes that the reference to the alleged trial of a politician
living in [REDACTED] has no relevance to the grounds of appeal in the present
case.^^
42. The Prosecutor urges the Appeals Chamber to consider the arguments in the
Victims' Observations that the guarantees supplied by [REDACTED] were
"insignificanf ' and should dismiss the appeal.^^
J. Determination by the Appeals Chamber
(a) Standard of review and applicable law
43. Under the first ground of appeal, Mr Bemba submits that the Trial Chamber's
conclusion that there was a possibility that he would abscond if released onto the
^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 33. ^ Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, "Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against the decision of Trial Chamber III of 28 July 2010 entitled 'Decision on the review of the detention of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo pursuant to Rule 118(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence'", 19 November 2010, ICC-01/05-01/08-1019 (OA 4) (hereinafter: ''Bemba OA 4 Judgment). ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 33. " Victims' Observations, paras 17-18. ^ Defense Response to the Victims' Observations, para. 9. ^ Defense Response to the Victims' Observations, para. 11. ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Victims' Observations, paras 5, 7.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 14/39 AtX^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 14/39 RH T OA7
territory of [REDACTED] was based on "a misapprehension" of the guarantees
provided by [REDACTED].^^
44. Regarding the standard of review for appeals granting or denying release, the
Appeals Chamber has previously held that:
[It] will not review the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber de novo, instead it will intervene in the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber only where clear errors of law, fact or procedure are shown to exist and vitiate the Impugned Decision.^^
45. As to what constitutes a clear enor of fact, the Appeals Chamber has held that a
Chamber commits such an enor if it misappreciates facts, disregards relevant facts or
takes into account facts extraneous to the sub judice issues.^^ In this regard, the
Appeals Chamber has underlined that the appraisal of evidence lies, in the first place,
with the Chamber considering the request for interim release. Therefore, in
determining whether the Trial Chamber has misappreciated facts in a decision on
interim release, the Appeals Chamber will "defer or accord a margin of appreciation
both to the inferences [the Trial Chamber] drew from the available evidence and to
the weight it accorded to the different factors militating for or against detention"^ and
will intervene "only in the case of a clear enor, namely where it cannot discern how
the Chamber's conclusion could have reasonably been reached from the evidence
before if'. ^
46. As regards the applicable law, article 60 (2) and (3) of the Statute provides:
(2) A person subject to a wanant of anest may apply for interim release pending trial. If the Pre-Trial Chamber is satisfied that the conditions set forth in article 58, paragraph 1, are met, the person shall continue to be detained. If it is not
^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 4. ^ Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, "Judgment on the appeal of the Prosecutor against Pre-Trial Chamber IPs 'Decision on the Interim Release of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and Convening Hearings with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, and the Republic of South Africa'", 2 December 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-631-Red (OA 2), (hereinafter: ''Bemba OA2 Judgment''), para. 62. ^ Bemba OA 2 Judgment, para. 61 (citing Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, "Judgment In the Appeal by Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui of 27 March 2008 against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on the Application of the Appellant for Interim Release", 9 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-572 (OA 4), para. 25). ^ Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, "Judgment In the Appeal by Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui of 27 March 2008 against the Decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on the Application of the Appellant for Interim Release", 9 June 2008, ICC-01/04-01/07-572 (OA 4), para. 25. * Mbarushimana O A Judgment, para. 17.
^ Mbarushimana OA Judgment, para. 17.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 15/39 7 ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 15/39 RH T OA7
satisfied, the Pre-Trial Chamber shall release the person, with or without conditions.
(3) The Pre-Trial Chamber shall periodically review its mling on the release or detention of the person, and may do so at any time on the request of the Prosecutor or the person. Upon such review, it may modify its mling as to detention, release or conditions of release, if it is satisfied that changed circumstances so require.
47. As to the imposition of conditions upon release, the Appeals Chamber has
previously held that:
If the [Chamber] is satisfied that the conditions set forth in article 58 (1) of the Statute are not met, it shall release the person, with or without conditions. If, [...] release would lead to any of the risks described in article 58 (1) (b) of the Statute, the Chamber may, pursuant to mle 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, examine appropriate conditions with a view to mitigating or negating the risk. As the list of conditions in mle 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence indicates, the Chamber may also, in appropriate circumstances, impose conditions that do not, per se, mitigate the risks described in article 58 (1) (b) of the Statute. The result of this two-tiered examination is a single unseverable decision that grants conditional release on the basis of specific and enforceable conditions. Put differently, in such circumstances, release is only possible if specific conditions are imposed.
48. Furthermore, for conditional release to be granted, "a State willing to accept the
person concemed as well as enforce related conditions is necessary".^"*
(b) Alleged misappreciation of [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations
49. In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber concluded that [REDACTED]
Letter and [REDACTED] Observations did not sufficiently guarantee Mr Bemba's
appearance at trial, and it is on this basis that Mr Bemba challenges the Trial
Chamber's assessment of the evidence before it. Thus, the question is whether the
Trial Chamber misappreciated the extent to which [REDACTED] Letter and
[REDACTED] Observations provided sufficient guarantees to enforce conditions of
release and to ensure Mr Bemba's appearance at trial.
50. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber found that despite
[REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations, Mr Bemba's continued
^ Bemba O A 2 Judgment, para. 105. ^ Bemba O A 2 Judgment, para. 106.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 16/39 Ac
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 16/39 RH T OA7
detention remained necessary under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of the Statute.^^ In particular,
the Trial Chamber found that (1) [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED]
Observations "convey little more than a general willingness to accept the accused into
[REDACTED] territory" and that "[REDACTED] did not specify which of the
conditions of mle 119 (1) it would be able to implemenf' and (2) that, "critically"
[REDACTED] did not specifically guarantee Mr Bemba's retum to the seat of the
Court if released onto [REDACTED] territory.^^ Taken together, the Trial Chamber
concluded that [REDACTED] submissions did "little to allay the Chamber's concems . • 77
regarding the possibility of the accused absconding".
51. As to the finding that [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations
did not specify the conditions [REDACTED] would be able to implement, the
Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber misappreciated these documents
because it did not read them in context with Mr Bemba's Letter addressed to
[REDACTED]. In Mr Bemba's Letter, he requested [REDACTED] to "guarantee his
appearance [at trial], specifically through a monitoring system in the event that he is
granted release [...] into [REDACTED] territory".^^ That letter also requested
[REDACTED] to confirm its willingness to "ensure that [Mr Bemba] returns to the
Netherlands to appear before the Intemational Criminal Court upon an order to this
effect by the Court, and ttansfer the accused into the custody of the Dutch authorities 70
along with his passport and other travel documents".
52. In [REDACTED] Letter, the competent authorities in [REDACTED] stated that
they had "granted [Mr Bemba's] requesf'.^^ [REDACTED] also informed Mr Bemba
that it would notify the Trial Chamber of the practical anangements that it would
implement if Mr Bemba was released to [REDACTED].^^ Moreover, in
[REDACTED] Observations, [REDACTED] informed the Trial Chamber that it will
"be able to put in place one or more of the conditions set forth in mle 119 (1) of the
Rules in the event that the Court decides to order the interim release of Mr Bemba
'' Impugned Decision, para. 61. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ Mr Bemba's Letter, p. 4. ^ Mr Bemba's Letter, p. 5.
80 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Letter, p. 2. ^ [REDACTED][REDACTED] Letter, p. 2.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 17/39 ^ A ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 17/39 RH T OA7
into the territory of [REDACTED]".^^ Thus, while [REDACTED] Letter and
[REDACTED] Observations did not in themselves identify specific conditions
[REDACTED] would impose, read together with Mr Bemba's Letter to
[REDACTED], it is at least clear that [REDACTED] considered that it could impose
the four specific conditions identified in Mr Bemba's letter and further that it could
impose any of the conditions listed in mle 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence if release were ordered. Thus, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial
Chamber ened in not considering [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED]
Observations in context with Mr Bemba's Letter, thereby resulting in a
misappreciation of the facts founding its decision.
53. Further, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Trial Chamber ened when it
dismissed [REDACTED] Observations for lack of explicit assurances as to which
conditions it would implement. " Under mle 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence, it is for the Chamber, and not for the receiving State, to impose conditions.
These conditions may include, but are not limited to, those enumerated under mle 119
(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Accordingly, in a situation where a
Chamber has not (yet) identified specific conditions which it considers appropriate to
impose, a State willing to accept a detained person can do little more than indicate its
general willingness and ability to implement conditions. The Appeals Chamber recalls
that in the Decision Requesting Observations on the Second Request, the Trial
Chamber inquired whether [REDACTED] "would be in a position to impose one or
more of the conditions listed in Rule 119 of the Rules''. "* The Trial Chamber did not
specify any conditions under mle 119 (1), nor did it request [REDACTED] to
guarantee Mr Bemba's appearance at trial, a condition that is not expressly stated in
mle 119 (1). As Mr Bemba notes, [REDACTED] Observations directly responded to
the Trial Chamber's invitation for observations.^^
54. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber finds the Prosecutor's reliance on the
Bemba OA 2 Judgment to support his submission that "in order for the guarantees to
be effective. States willing to host a detained person will specify the conditions and its
^ [REDACTED] Observations, p. 2. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. See, Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27. ^ Decision Requesting Observations on the Second Request, para. 9 (d).
^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 11.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 18/39 ^ ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 18/39 RH T OA7
(sic) capability to enforce them"^^ to be misguided. In the Bemba OA 2 Judgment, the
Appeals Chamber reviewed the Pre-Trial Chamber's decision to order Mr Bemba's
conditional release without determining the appropriate conditions or identifying a
State to which Mr Bemba would be released.^^ It was within that context that the
Appeals Chamber held that to grant conditional release, a Chamber must impose
specific conditions and that a State willing and able to enforce those conditions must
be identified. Thus, the Bemba OA 2 Judgment does not stand for the proposition
that a receiving State specifies the conditions it is willing and able to impose. On the
conttary, it reinforces the point that it is the Chamber, and not the receiving State, that
must specify the appropriate conditions of release.
55. In relation to conditional release, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the
examination of conditions of release is discretionary and that conditional release is
possible in two situations: (1) where a Chamber, although satisfied that the conditions
under article 58 (1) (b) are not met, nevertheless considers it appropriate to release the
person subject to conditions; and (2) where risks enumerated in article 58 (1) (b) exist,
but the Chamber considers that these can be mitigated by the imposition of certain . • 8Q
conditions of release. Therefore, in a situation such as the present, where the Trial
Chamber has found that detention is necessary to ensure the person's appearance at
trial, the Chamber has the discretion to consider whether the risk of flight can be
mitigated by the imposition of conditions and to order conditional release. However,
given that a person's personal liberty is at stake if a Chamber is considering
conditional release and a State has indicated its general willingness and ability to
accept a detained person and enforce conditions, the Chamber must seek observations
from that State as to its ability to enforce specific conditions identified by the
Chamber. Depending on the circumstances, the Chamber may have to seek further
information from the State if it finds that the State's observations are insufficient to
enable the Chamber to make an informed decision. That is not to say that the
Chamber upon receiving observations from the State is obliged to grant conditional
^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 27. At paragraph 28, the Prosecutor also states that the "Appeals Chamber has required, the practical modalities or concrete conditions, must be specified when requesting the provisional release (and not after) as they are necessary factors that the Chamber must consider in order to make an informed decision." ^ Bemba OA 2 Judgment, para. 90. ^ Bemba OA 2 Judgment, paras 105-106. ^ Bemba O A 2 Judgment, para. 105.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 19/39 - ^ ^ é ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 19/39 RH T OA7
release. It only means that the Chamber must seek information that would enable it to
make an informed decision on the matter.
56. In the present case, [REDACTED] indicated that it was able to enforce one or
more of the conditions enumerated under mle 119 (1). If the Trial Chamber
considered this information to be insufficient for its purposes, it should have sought
further information from [REDACTED] regarding the latter's capacity to enforce
those conditions or any other conditions that the Trial Chamber considered
appropriate to impose.
57. The Appeals Chamber now turns to the Trial Chamber's finding that
"[c]ritically, [REDACTED] does not guarantee to ensure the accused's retum to the
seat of the Court". ^ In [REDACTED] Letter, [REDACTED] confirmed its
willingness to impose the four conditions listed in Mr Bemba's Letter, including
ensuring his retum to the Netherlands to appear before the Court and his transfer into
the custody of the Dutch authorities. In light of Mr Bemba's Letter, the Appeals
Chamber carmot discern how the Trial Chamber concluded that [REDACTED] Letter
and [REDACTED] Observations did not include a guarantee from [REDACTED] that
it would ensure the retum of Mr Bemba to the seat of the Court. Thus, by failing to
consider [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations in context with Mr
Bemba's Letter, the Trial Chamber misappreciated the facts founding its conclusion
that [REDACTED] failure to provide a specific guarantee was "critical". ^
58. In sum, the Appeals Chamber finds that Trial Chamber committed a clear enor
in not considering [REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations in context
with Mr Bemba's Letter, leading to a misappreciation of the facts founding its
decision on interim release.
(c) Other alleged errors in relation to article 58 (1) (b) (i)
59. Mr Bemba alleges that the Trial Chamber committed other enors in its
determination of the Second Request. He contends that the factors taken into account
by the Trial Chamber to conclude that Mr Bemba is a "flight risk" do not support that
^ Impugned Decision, para 59. * Impugned Decision, para. 59.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 20/39 :?éc
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 20/39 RH T OA7
09
conclusion. In his view, the Trial Chamber placed too much weight on
considerations of his "unnamed intemational contacts", his ability to "muster
resources" and his "past and present position" as opposed to other factors negating the
risk that he might abscond.^^
60. With respect to his intemational contacts, Mr Bemba argues that the Trial
Chamber failed to substantiate the existence of such contacts and how they would
make him more likely to flee.^"^ The Appeals Chamber has previously held that when
a Chamber conducts a review of release or detention, it "does not have to enter
findings on the circumstances already decided upon in the mling on detention" or
"entertain submissions by the detained person that merely repeat arguments that the
Chamber has already addressed in previous decisions".^^ In this case, the existence of
Mr Bemba's network of intemational contacts had already been considered in
previous decisions.^^ The Trial Chamber did not have to re-evaluate this factor in the
absence of a suggestion that it had changed or no longer existed. Accordingly, the
Trial Chamber did not commit a clear enor in relying on Mr Bemba's network of
intemational contacts in the Impugned Decision without requiring further proof
61. In relation to his ability to muster resources from family and friends, Mr Bemba
submits that it was unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to infer from this that he could
also muster funds to abscond. Furthermore, he submits that the finding that his
"present and past position" will enable him to abscond is undermined by his "apparent
desire to live as a public figure rather than a fugitive".^^
^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 15. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 19. " Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 16. ^ Bemba O A 4 Judgment, para. 53. ^ Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, "Decision on application for interim release", 22 September 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-73, para. 55; This decision was confirmed on appeal by the Appeals Chamber in "Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bema Gombo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber III entitled 'Decision on application for interim release'", 16 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-323 (OA), para. 55; "Decision on Application for Interim Release", 16 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-321, para. 36; "Decision on Application for Interim Release", 14 April 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-403, para. 45; "Decision on the Interim Release of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and Convening Hearings with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal and the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Republic of South Africa", 14 August, 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-475, (hereinafter: "Decision of 14 August 2009"), para. 58; ICC-01/05-01/08-T-18-Conf-ENG, p. 28, line 24, to p. 29, line 14. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 18.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 21/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 21/39 RH T OA7
62. The Appeals Chamber has emphasised that it will defer to the inferences drawn
and the weight given to evidence by a Chamber considering a request for interim
release unless it is established that the Chamber's conclusion was clearly enoneous.^^
In the present case, Mr Bemba believes the Trial Chamber should have weighed his
access to financial resources and his present and past position differently and should
have drawn different inferences from the facts before it. However, he has not
identified any clear enors in the Trial Chamber's reasoning that resulted in a
misappreciation of the facts founding its findings or that rendered the Trial Chamber's
conclusion unreasonable. Therefore, his arguments are dismissed.
B. Second Ground of Appeal 63. Regarding the second ground of appeal, Mr Bemba submits that in entering a
finding under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the Statute that his continued detention was
necessary because there "is a risk that if released, the accused may endanger the
Court's proceedings by interfering with witnesses", ^ the Trial Chamber
misappreciated the facts and failed to provide sufficient justification for its departure
from previous findings on his detention. ^
1. Procedural history and relevant part of the Impugned Decision
64. On 20 August 2008, the Pre-Trial Chamber mied on Mr Bemba's detention
pursuant to article 60 (2) of the Statute and ordered his continued detention on the
basis of article 58 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Statute. ^^ Subsequent reviews of Mr
Bemba's detention on 16 December 2008 and 14 April 2009 ordered Mr Bemba's 109
continued detention on these same grounds.
65. On 14 August 2009, in another review of Mr Bemba's detention, Pre-Trial
Chamber found that the conditions under article 58 (1) (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) were no
longer satisfied. The Pre-Trial Chamber thus ordered Mr Bemba's conditional release
^ See above, para.44. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 62. *®® Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 21. ^ ^ "Decision on application for interim release", 20 August 2008, reclassified as pubHc on 22 September 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-73, paras 55-60 (hereinafter: "Decision of 20 August 2008"), paras 55-58 and 59. This decision was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber in the "Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Jean-Pierre Bema Gombo against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber III entitled 'Decision on application for interim release'", 16 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-323 OA. ^ ^ "Decision on Application for Interim Release", 16 December 2008, ICC-01/05-01/08-321, paras 36-48 "Decision on Application for Interim Release", 14 April 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-403, para. 44-50 hereinafter: "Decision of 14 April 2009").
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 22/39
^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 22/39 RH T OA7
but defened the consideration of appropriate conditions to a later date. ^ On an
appeal lodged by the Prosecutor against the Decision of 14 August 2009, the Appeals
Chamber reversed the Pre-Trial Chamber's findings under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of the
Statute. The Appeals Chamber did not address the Pre-Trial Chamber's findings under
article 58 (1) (b) (ii) and (iii) of the Statute, noting that since the conditions under
article 58 (1) (b) (i) were met, it was not necessary to consider the other conditions
under article 58 (l)(b).^^^
66. On 8 December 2009 ^ and 1 April 2010, ^ the Trial Chamber reviewed Mr
Bemba's detention and ordered his continued detention on the basis of article 58(1)
(b) (i) of the Statute. Similarly, in the most recent review of Mr Bemba's detention on
17 December 2010 the Trial Chamber ordered his continued detention on the basis of
article 58 (1) (b) (i) of the Statute. ^^ These decisions did not consider whether the
conditions under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the Statute applied to Mr Bemba.
67. In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber found that there was the risk that,
if released, Mr Bemba would endanger the Court's proceedings by interfering with
witnesses in as stipulated under article 58 (1) (b) (ii). ^^ The Trial Chamber noted that:
While this factor was not refened to in the December 2010 Decision, the Chamber [believed] that it may consider altemative bases for the accused's detention, particularly in light of the Appeals Chamber's mling regarding the broad inquiry that the Chamber is required to undertake in the context of detention decisions. ^
68. The Trial Chamber found that the "scope of witness interference" was increased
because of (1) the disclosure of the identities of all prosecution witnesses to Mr
Bemba; (2) his ability to interfere with witnesses due to his position of influence in
the region where many witnesses reside; (3) his network of supporters; and (4) his
^ ^ Decision of 14 August 2009 (this decision only addressed the previous findings under article 58 (1) (b) (i) noting that the conditions under article 58 (1) (b) are in the altemative). ^ ^ Bemba OA 2 Judgment, para. 89 *® ICC-01/05-01/08-T-18-Conf-ENG, p. 25, lines 19-21. ° "Decision on the review of the detention of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo pursuant to Rule 118 (2)
of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence", lCC-01/05-01/08-743, para. 33. ^ ^ "Decision on the review of detention of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo pursuant to the Appeals Judgment of 19 November 2010", ICC-01/05-01/08-1088 (hereinafter: "Decision of 17 December 2010"). ° Impugned Decision, paras 62, 65. ° Impugned Decision, para. 62.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 23/39 ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 23/39 RH T OA7
ability to muster substantial financial resources.^^^ The Trial Chamber further
observed that one vulnerable witness was yet to be called and it was possible that the
Chamber would call additional witnesses at a later stage. ^^ The Trial Chamber also
refened to concems that witnesses testifying before the Chamber had expressed
regarding their safety and that of their families. ^ The Trial Chamber considered that
although the duration of the requested release was short, it did not alleviate its 1 1 0
concems of possible witness interference.
2. Mr Bemba's submissions
69. Mr Bemba advances two main arguments on this ground. First, he submits that
this is the first time that a finding has been entered under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the
Statute. " Consequently, in his view, the Trial Chamber ened in entering this finding
as there were no "new circumstances, new facts, or new actions" to justify a departure
from previous mlings on his detention.^^^ Second, he avers that the Trial Chamber's
findings under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) were made "/« abstracto with no identification of
any factual basis, identifiable threat or propensity of the accused to intimidate
witnesses". ^
3. Prosecutor's submissions
70. The Prosecutor asserts that Mr Bemba's submissions are fiawed and grounded
on the wrong interpretation of prior decisions, which did not include any finding on
article 58 (1) (b) (ii). In his view, the fact that this is the first time that the Trial
Chamber has entered a finding under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) does not mean that the
Chamber had not previously found that Mr Bemba was not interfering with witnesses.
He contends that the Trial Chamber decided to consider altemative bases of Mr
Bemba's detention as a result of arguments advanced by Mr Bemba before the
Chamber.^^^ The Prosecutor also submits that Mr Bemba's contention that the Trial
Chamber made its findings in the abstract is not home out by its reasoning.^^^ In his
**° Impugned Decision, para. 63. * * Impugned Decision, para. 64. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 64. impugned uecision, para. 04. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 63. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 21. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 21. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 22. ** Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 2 ** Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, paras '.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 24/39 / ^ .
.34. 5 35-37.
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 24/39 RH T OA7
view, the Trial Chamber properly considered all the relevant factors and found that
there was a possibility of witness interference. ^
4. Determination by the Appeals Chamber
71. Under article 60 (3) of the Statute, a Chamber may modify its previous mling on
detention, release or conditions of release if changed circumstances so require. The
previous mling under article 60 (3) refers to the "initial decision made under article 60
(2) of the Statute as well as any potential subsequent modifications made to that
decision under article 60 (3) of the Statute". ^ The Appeals Chamber has previously
held that changed circumstances means a "change in some or all the facts underlying a
previous decision on detention, or a new fact satisfying a Chamber that a modification
of its prior mling is necessary".^^^ Thus, a Chamber reviewing a person's detention
under article 60 (3) must "revert to the mling on detention to determine whether there
has been a change in the circumstances underpirming the mling and whether there are
any new circumstances that have a bearing on the conditions under article 58 (1) of
the Stattite".^^^
72. In light of the procedural history summarised above, the Appeals Chamber
notes that the last time a Chamber made a finding that Mr Bemba's detention was
necessary to ensure that he did not "obstmct or endanger the investigation or the court
proceedings" under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the Statute was in the Decision of 14 April
2009. Since that decision, article 58 (1) (b) (ii) has not been found to be one of the
grounds for Mr Bemba's detention. Therefore, the cunent basis for Mr Bemba's
detention is the need "to ensure [his] appearance at trial" under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of
the Statute. Indeed, in the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber refened to the
Decision of 17 December 2010 as the operative decision for its review of Mr Bemba's
detention.^^^ In that decision, the basis for Mr Bemba's detention was found to be
article 58 (1) (b) (i) of the Statute, that is, the possibility that he would abscond if
released. Thus, in order for the Trial Chamber to have found that Mr Bemba's
continued detention was now necessary also under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the Statute,
^ ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 35. ^ ° Bemba OA 4 Judgment, para. 46. *^ Bemba OA2 Judgment, para. 60. ^ ^ Bemba OA 4 Judgment, para. 52. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 50.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 25/39 ^ c
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 25/39 RH T OA7
it would have had to demonsttate a new fact or a change in the circumstances
founding the Decision of 17 December 2010.
73. However, although the Impugned Decision identified certain factors as the basis
for the finding that there was the possibility that Mr Bemba would interfere with
witnesses if released, ^"^ the Trial Chamber did not explain why those factors
constituted a change in the circumstances since the Decision of 17 December 2010.
Thus, the Trial Chamber did not revert to the previous mling on detention to
determine whether there has been a change in the circumstances underpinning the
mling, as it was obliged to do under article 60 (3).
74. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber ened by
entering an additional legal basis for Mr Bemba's detention under article 58 (1) (b)
(ii) without showing changed circumstances, as required by article 60 (3).
C. Third Ground of Appeal 75. On this ground of appeal, Mr Bemba submits that the Trial Chamber ened in (1)
summarily dismissing the Third Request without seeking observations from the
DRC^^^ and (2) concluding that there was no legal basis for the request.^^^
1. Procedural history and relevant part of Impugned Decision
76. In his Third Request, Mr Bemba applied for permission to leave the United
Nations Detention Unit for approximately 17 hours to ttavel to the DRC to register to
vote.^^^ Mr Bemba asserted that electoral registtation required his physical presence in
the DRC. ^^
77. The Trial Chamber summarily dismissed the Third Request because in the
Chamber's view, there was no legal or factual basis for the request. The Chamber
noted that Mr Bemba had cited no "provision in the Court's Statute, Rules or
Regulations in support of the Application, and as far as the Court [was] aware,
nothing in the Court's constitutional documents [supported] a grant of release for the
^ ^ Impugned Decision, paras 63-64. * ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 34-35. * ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. * ^ Third Request, para. 39. ^ ^ Third Request, paras 2-3, 10-13. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 73.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 26/39 y ^ /
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 26/39 RH T OA7
purposes sought."^^^ It noted that on previous occasions, Mr Bemba had been granted
permission, in exceptional circumstances on humanitarian grounds, to ttavel to
Belgium to attend the funerals of his late father and stepmother. ^ It concluded that
although it was "open to permitting the accused to leave detention for humanitarian
reasons in 'exceptional circumstances' [...] ttavelling to the DRC to complete one's
electoral registtation is not the type of circumstance that wanants such exttaordinary
relief'. ^ ^ Further, recalling its finding that Mr Bemba "constitutes a flight risk", the
Trial Chamber considered that the release sought "to a State in which he enjoys
considerable power and influence" would even heighten the risk of flight. ^ ^ For this
reason, the Trial Chamber did not consider it necessary to seek observations from the
DRC.'^^
2. Mr Bemba's submissions
78. Mr Bemba asserts that the Trial Chamber ened in its conclusion that he did not
establish the legal basis for the Third Request. ^ He submits that he was aware that
the Court's legal instmments did not expressly support release for the purposes
sought. Thus, he argues that his request was founded on the Chamber's "inherent
powers" and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which falls within "intemationally recognised human rights" recognised under article
21(3)oftheStattite.^^^
79. Moreover, Mr Bemba submits that the Trial Chamber ened in law when it
dismissed the Third Request in limine, without seeking observations from the DRC or
the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(hereinafter: "MONUSCO").^^^ In his view, had the Trial Chamber sought the views
of the DRC before rendering its decision, as is required by mle 119 (3) of the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence, sufficient conditions capable of mitigating his risk of flight
^ ° Impugned Decision, para. 68. *^ "Decision on the Defence's Urgent Request concerning Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba's Attendance of his Father's Funeral", 3 July 2009, ICC-01/05-01/08-437-Conf, para. 9; "Decision on the Defence Request for Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba to attend his Stepmother's Funeral", 7 January 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1099-Conf, paras 13, 15. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 69. * ^ Impugned Decision, para. 71. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 71. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 35.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 27/39 y ^ ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 27/39 RH T OA7
could have been agreed upon. ^^ He further contends that similar anangements could
have been made with MONUSCO and that since none of these options were explored,
the Trial Chamber "remained unaware of potential ways of mitigating the alleged risk
offlighf'.^'^
3. The Prosecutor's submissions
80. The Prosecutor submits that Mr Bemba misrepresents the Impugned Decision
on this issue. He argues that although the Trial Chamber dismissed the Third Request
because Mr Bemba had cited no provision in the Court's legal texts, the Trial
Chamber considered whether the request constituted "exceptional circumstances" that
would allow Mr Bemba's release on humanitarian grounds.^^^ He asserts that it was
incumbent on Mr Bemba to establish that exceptional circumstances existed in this
case, which he failed to do. " ^ In his view, the Trial Chamber did not en in summarily
dismissing the Third Request. "^
4. Observations of the victims and responses thereto
81. The Legal Representative of the victims asserts that the Third Request is moot
since, according to Mr Bemba, the electoral register closed on 7 July 2011.^"^ In
response, Mr Bemba argues that the Legal Representative of the Victims has failed to
respond to the enors of law and fact raised in respect of the Third Request. "^
J. Determination by the Appeals Chamber
82. The Appeals Chamber finds Mr Bemba's submissions that the Trial Chamber
ened in failing to seek the views of the DRC before dismissing the Third Request to
be without merit. The Appeals Chamber notes that mle 119 (3) of the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence mandates that a Chamber seeks the view of any relevant state
"[b]efore imposing or amending any conditions restricting liberty". Thus, mle 119 (3)
does not apply to requests for interim release generally, but to a situation where a
* ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 35. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 35. ^ ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 40. ^ ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 41. ^ ^ Prosecutor's Response to the Document in Support of the Appeal, para 40. ^ ^ Victims' Observations, para. 14. ^ ^ "Defence response to the 'Observations du Représentant légal Maître Zarambaud Assingambi sur le «Document of Défense Appeal against Trial Chambre Ill's Decision on Applications of Provisional Release Dated 27 June 2011» Présenté par la Défense du Sieur Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo'", 26 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1612-Conf,para. 15.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 28/39 <IC
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 28/39 RH T OA7
Chamber is considering the conditional release of detained person or the amendment
of conditions already imposed. In the present case, the Trial Chamber had found that
Mr Bemba's continued detention was necessary under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of the
Statute. As stated above, in such a situation the Chamber has the discretion to
consider the possibility of conditional release or not to do so. " ^ In the Impugned
Decision, the Trial Chamber declined to consider conditional release after considering
Mr Bemba's wish to participate in the elections in the DRC and balancing this desire
against the fact that he is cunently standing trial for serious crimes "*^ and its finding
that Mr Bemba "constitutes a flight risk".. The Trial Chamber considered that the
release sought "to a State in which he enjoys considerable power and influence"
would even heighten the risk of flight. "^ In the view of the Appeals Chamber, no
enor is apparent in the Trial Chamber's approach. Since conditions of release were
not being considered, the Chamber was not obliged to seek views under mle 119 (3)
of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
83. As to Mr Bemba's assertion that the Trial Chamber ened in its conclusion that
Mr Bemba did not provide a legal basis for the Third Request, he submits that he was
aware that the Court's legal instmments did not expressly support release for the
purposes sought. "^ He submits that his request was based on the Trial Chamber's
"inherent powers" and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which falls within "intemationally recognised human rights" recognised under
article 21 (3) of the Stattite.^^^
84. The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr Bemba's argument that the Trial Chamber
dismissed the Third Request simply because he did not cite a provision in the Court's
legal texts is not supported by the Chamber's reasoning in relation to the Third
Request. In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber stated that it may invoke its
inherent powers under article 64 (6) (f) of the Statute to grant an accused person
temporary release in "exceptional humanitarian circumstances".^^^ Therefore, as
pointed out by the Prosecutor, although the Trial Chamber stated that there was no
^ ^ See above, para. 46. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, paras 70, 72. ^ ^ Impugned Decision, para. 71. ^ ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. ^ ° Document in Support of the Appeal, para. 36. ^ ^ See, Impugned Decision, para. 51
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 29/39 ,
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 29/39 RH T OA7
express provision in the Court's legal instmments to support the Third Request, it
nevertheless considered, on the basis of previous jurispmdence, whether the request
was an exceptional humanitarian circumstance justifying the relief sought. It
concluded that it was not. The Trial Chamber thus distinguished Mr Bemba's request
the Third Request from the previous occasions when Mr Bemba was granted
permission to leave the Detention Centte for humanitarian reasons. It then applied the
regime of article 60 (3) of the Statute to the Third Request and rejected it.
85. The Appeals Chamber cannot see any enor in this approach. The Appeals
Chamber finds that Trial Chamber was right to apply article 60 (3) to the Third
Request. Article 60 of the Statute describes the circumstances under which a person
subject to a wanant of anest may be detained or released. Under article 60 (3), a
Chamber considering a request for review of detention must consider, in light of
article 58 (1) (b) of the Statute, whether there are changed circumstances justifying a
person's release. In the present appeal, the Appeals Chamber does not consider it
necessary to determine whether a Trial Chamber actually has the power to order
release for "humanitarian reasons" outside the framework of article 60 (3) of the
Statute. As stated above, having found that there is a risk that Mr Bemba may abscond
and having balanced that against Mr Bemba's desire to participate in the elections, the
Chamber did not en when declining to consider his conditional release to the DRC.
86. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr Bemba's submissions under the
third ground of appeal must be dismissed.
V. APPROPRIATE RELIEF 87. On an appeal pursuant to article 82 (1) (b) of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber
may confirm, reverse or amend the decision appealed (mle 158 (1) of the Rules of
Procedure and Evidence). In view of the findings of the Appeals Chamber under the
first and second grounds of appeal, it is appropriate to reverse the Impugned Decision
to the extent that the Trial Chamber dismissed the Second Request and to remand the
matter to the Trial Chamber for new consideration. Until, and subject to, the Trial
Chamber's decision on the matter, Mr Jean-Piene Bemba Gombo shall remain in
detention. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
Judge Anita Usacka appends a partly dissenting opinion to this judgment.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 30/39 T^C
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 30/39 RH T OA7
Done in both English and French, the English version being authoritative.
"•i-/ -iA^V--> \^^C ^ \
Judge Erkki Kourula Presiding Judge
Dated this 19 ^ day of August 2011
At The Hague, The Netherlands
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 31/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 31/39 RH T OA7
Partly Dissenting opinion of Judge Anita Usacka
1. I agree with the Majority to confirm the part of the impugned decision^ of Trial
Chamber III (hereinafter "Trial Chamber") that rejects the "Exttemely urgent
application for an exeat from the detention centte to allow Mr Jean-Piene Bemba
Gombo to perform his civic duties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo". I also
agree with the reasons provided by the Majority relevant to the second ground of
appeal. I disagree with the Majority's analysis of the first ground of appeal. I cannot
see merit in the first ground of appeal, and would therefore dismiss this ground and
confirm the Trial Chamber's decision rejecting the urgent "Additional Request for
interim release of Mr Jean-Piene Bemba Gombo subsequent to the letter of guarantee
by a State provided by [REDACTED]"^ (hereinafter: "Request for Interim Release to
[REDACTED]").
A. Procedural history 2. Mr. Jean-Piene Bemba Gombo (hereinafter "Mr Bemba"), repeatedly requested
the Court to grant him interim release pending trial. His counsel addressed several
states, requesting their agreement, in principle, to accept Mr Bemba onto their
territory for a period strictly limited to the duration of his interim release. One of
those requests was in a letter to [REDACTED] of 20 September 2010" (hereinafter:
"Mr Bemba's Letter"). The following request was made therein:
Accordingly, Mr Jean Piene Bemba Gombo has instmcted me to request respectfully Your agreement in principle to accept him onto Your territory for a period strictly limited to the duration of his interim release.^
3. Mr Bemba's Letter further enquired whether [REDACTED] could offer
a system to guarantee [Mr Bemba's] appearance, specifically through a monitoring system in the event that he is granted interim release or, at the very least, is released at weekends into your territory or into the national territory of any other host State.
^ "Decision on Applications for Provisional Release", 27 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1565-Conf ^ 10 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1501-Conf-tENG. ^ 6 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-tENG. ^ Annex B to Request for Interim Release to [REDACTED], 6 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-AnxB-tENG, pp. 3-5. ^ Mr Bemba's Letter, p. 4. ^ Mr Bemba's Letter, p. 4.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 32/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 32/39 RH T OA7
Mr Bemba's Letter then proposed that [REDACTED] indicate (with a copy to the
Registry of the Court) its willingness (1) to provide for the security and constant
monitoring of Mr Bemba, (2) to inform the Court about Mr Bemba fulfilling any
imposed conditions restricting liberty, (3) to report to the Court any violation or
attempted violation of the conditions restricting liberty and (4) finally to ensure that
Mr Bemba returns to The Netherlands to appear before the Court and, in this context,
to ttansfer Mr Bemba into the custody of Dutch authorities.^
4. [REDACTED] responded to Mr Bemba's counsel by letter dated 26 May 2011^
(hereinafter: "[REDACTED] Letter"), as follows:
I would like to inform you that the competent authorities of [REDACTED] have granted your request. The ICC has also been informed. In addition, the practical anangements that would apply in the event of Mr Bemba's provisional release will be made known to you and to the Court as soon as practicable.^
5. On 6 June 2011, Mr Bemba filed before the Trial Chamber his urgent Request
for Interim Release to [REDACTED]. It is important to note that at that time, the Trial
Chamber had already received Mr Bemba's request dated 3 May 2011 for interim
release to the Kingdom of Belgium (hereinafter "Belgium"). The Trial Chamber
requested observations from Belgium on 12 May 2011 and granted Belgium's request
for an extension of time until 13 June 2011. ^ It is in this context that Mr Bemba's
Request for Interim Release to [REDACTED] was received by the Chamber.
6. On 8 June 2011, the Trial Chamber decided to invite submissions from
[REDACTED] by 20 June 2011, "[p]ursuant to Rule 119 of the Rules, before
deciding upon a request for [Mr Bemba's] interim release". ^ The Trial Chamber
asked two specific questions, which had, in substance, also been posed to Belgium.
The first question was whether there "would be any legal impediment for Mr Bemba
to enter and leave the territory of [REDACTED], should he be conditionally
^ Mr Bemba's Letter, p. 5. ^ Annex A to Request for Interim Release to [REDACTED], 6 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1479-Conf-AnxA-tENG, p. 2. ^ [REDACTED] Letter, p. 2. ° "Decision on the 'Report of the Registrar on the execution of decision lCC-01/05-01/08-1398-
Conf ", 19 May 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1424-Conf, para 5. ' "Decision requesting observations on the 'Requête ampliative de Mise en liberté provisoire de M.
Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo suite à la lettre de garantie étatique émanant de [REDACTED]'", 8 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 33/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 33/39 RH T OA7
19
released". Secondly, [REDACTED] was asked whether it "would be in a position to
impose one or more conditions listed in Rule 119 of the Rules". ^
7. The observations of Belgium of 9 June 2011 were submitted on 16 pages and
analyse in detail whether and in which respect Belgium could implement measures
restricting liberty imposed under mle 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence.^^ The observations of [REDACTED] of 20 June 2011^^ (hereinafter
"[REDACTED] Observations") consisted of one page, stating:
The Government of [REDACTED] attests that:
a. There is no legal impediment to Mr Bemba's entry into or departure from [REDACTED] tenitory in the event of interim release during judicial recess and period of at least three (3) consecutive days when the Court will not be in session, including long weekends.
b. It is able to implement on or more of the conditions set forth in article 119 of the Rules in the event the Court decides to order the interim release of Mr Bemba into the territory of [REDACTED].
c. Accordingly, it does not object to the interim release of Mr Jean-Piene Bemba Gombo.^^
8. On 27 June 2011, the Trial Chamber issued the "Decision on Applications for
Provisional Release"^^ (hereinafter: "Impugned Decision"), rejecting all requests for
interim release by Mr Bemba, including the Request for Interim Release to
[REDACTED]. The Trial Chamber stated the following with respect to
[REDACTED] position:
[REDACTED] brief letter and its equally succinct submissions to this Chamber convey little more than a general willingness to accept the accused into [REDACTED] territory and do not specify which of Rule 119(l)'s conditions [REDACTED] would be able to implement. Critically, [REDACTED] does not guarantee to ensure the accused's retum to the seat of the Court if he is released into [REDACTED] territory. In this regard, [REDACTED] letters do little to allay the Chamber's concems regarding the possibility of the accused
^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf, para. 9. ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf, para. 9. ^ "Transmission of the Observations of the Kingdom of Belgium on the Application for Interim Release", 10 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1505-Conf-tENG. ' Annex 2 to "Report of the Registry on the Implementation of Decision ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf', 20 June 2011, ICC-0 l/05-01/08-1556-Conf-Anx2-tENG. ^ [REDACTED] Observations, p. 2. ^ ICC-01/05-01/08-1565-Conf
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 34/39
C^^^c^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 34/39 RH T OA7
absconding. This is particularly tme given that the accused appears to have no personal or family connections to [REDACTED].*^
9. The Trial Chamber considered, after having evaluated the effects of
[REDACTED] Observations to the Chamber and [REDACTED] Letter to Mr. Bemba,
many other factors in taking the decision that Mr Bemba remained a "fiight risk" if he
were to be released on [REDACTED] territory. Paragraph 61 of the Impugned
Decision clarifies that the Chamber weighed the concern that Mr Bemba could
abscond while in [REDACTED] in light of his being in the possession of the means to
abscond and the confirmation of charges and start of trial ^ against other factors
militating against the risk of flight ([REDACTED] willingness to accept Mr Bemba,
Mr Bemba's compliant behaviour, his desire to live as a public figure, the fact that
release was sought for short periods of time).^^ The Trial Chamber found that
"[b]alancing these considerations, the Chamber concludes that there is a meaningful
risk that, if provisionally released into the territory of [REDACTED], Mr Bemba
would not retum to complete his trial".^^
B. First Ground of Appeal 10. Mr Bemba alleges one main enor in his first ground of appeal, namely that the
Trial Chamber enoneously evaluated the guarantees provided by [REDACTED] and 99
therefore ened in concluding that there remains a risk that he may abscond. In so
doing, he specifically raises the following three points. First, he states that the Trial
Chamber did not give appropriate weight to [REDACTED] assurances, second, it did
not await the information by [REDACTED] on the practical anangements and third, it 9'^
did not ask for more information, especially a guarantee.
7. Standard of review
11. The alleged enor is an enor of fact. The standard of review relevant to an enor
of fact has been confirmed recently by the Appeals Chamber in the Judgment of
* Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ Impugned Decision, paras 55-56. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 61. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 61. ^ "Document in support of Defence Appeal against Trial Chamber Ill's decision on Applications for Provisional Release, dated 27 July 2011" 1 July 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-15 86-Conf (hereinafter: "Document in Support of the Appeal"), paras 2-19. ^ Document in Support of the Appeal, paras 12-14.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 35/39
/ ^ - ^ - ^
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 35/39 RH T OA7
14 July 2011 in the case Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana?^ The Appeals
Chamber stated:
[It] will not interfere with a Pre-Trial or Trial Chamber's evaluation of the evidence just because the Appeals Chamber might have come to a different conclusion. It will interfere only in the case of a clear enor, namely where it cannot discern how the Chamber's conclusion could have reasonably been reached from the evidence before it. ^
2. The factual evaluation relevant to [REDACTED] Observations, [REDACTED] Letter and Mr Bemba's Letter in the Impugned Decision
12. Reading [REDACTED] Observations and [REDACTED] Letter, the facttial
findings of the Trial Chamber appear to be rather sttaightforward:
[REDACTED] brief letter and its equally succinct submissions to this Chamber convey little more than a general willingness to accept the accused into [REDACTED] tenitory [...].^^
13. It also appears to be a reasonable conclusion of the Trial Chamber that
[REDACTED] Letter and [REDACTED] Observations "do not specify which of Rule
119(l)'s conditions [REDACTED] would be able to implemenf'. "^ The Trial
Chamber specifically asked [REDACTED] whether it is in a position to implement
one or more measures specified under mle 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence.^^ [REDACTED] Observations to the Trial Chamber do not refer in any
detail to the measures mentioned in Rule 119 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence. [REDACTED] Observations also do not take into account Mr Bemba's
Letter, in which he proposed a number of conditions restricting liberty that could be
imposed under mle 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and wherein he
asked whether [REDACTED] would be in a position to implement such measures.
[REDACTED] Letter to Mr Bemba did not address in any more detail conditions
restricting liberty either. Instead, [REDACTED] Letter responded to Mr Bemba's
Letter of several pages by stating that [REDACTED] "granted" the request. This
^ "Judgment on the appeal of Mr Callixte Mbarushimana against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 19 May 2011 entitled 'Decision on the "Defence Request for Interim Release'"", 14 July 2011, ICC-01/04-01/10-283 (hereinafter: "Mbamshimana OA Judgment"). ^ Mbarushimana OA Judgment, para. 1 (key finding), para. 17. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ^ "Decision requesting observations on the 'Requête ampliative de Mise en liberté provisoire de M. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo suite à la lettre de garantie étatique émanant de [REDACTED]'", 8 June 2011, ICC-01/05-01/08-1492-Conf, para. 9.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 36/39
é^-j
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 36/39 RH T OA7
response can reasonably be read as only referring to Mr Bemba's overall request, i.e.
whether [REDACTED] would, in principle, be willing to accept him on his territory
by (generally) agreeing to implement measures restricting liberty.
14. The Trial Chamber continues with the following factual evaluation in the
Impugned Decision: "Critically, [REDACTED] does not guarantee to ensure the
accused's retum to the seat of the Court if he is released into [REDACTED]
territory".^^ Mr Bemba himself refened to [REDACTED] Letter to his counsel as a
guarantee.^^ This characterisation of [REDACTED] Letter even became part of the
title of his application to the Trial Chamber ("letter of guarantee by a State").^^
Therefore, it is reasonable that the Trial Chamber addressed the matter of a guarantee
in the Impugned Decision. Considering [REDACTED] Observations, it is evident that
they do not provide a guarantee. However, Mr Bemba's Letter asked for information
as to whether [REDACTED] could offer a "system to guarantee his appearance"^^ and
whether [REDACTED] would indicate its willingness to ensure the retum of Mr
Bemba to the Court." ^ Considering the questions posed by Mr Bemba's Letter,
[REDACTED] response thereto (in [REDACTED] Letter) would have required the
choice of somewhat different wording than the simple statement that the request is
"granted". Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that [REDACTED] Letter does not
provide such a guarantee. I cannot discern a factual enor in this finding of the Trial
Chamber.
15. Mr Bemba argues that the Trial Chamber omitted to await information about
practical anangements by [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] Letter to Mr Bemba stated
that "[t]he ICC has also been informed. In addition, the practical anangements that
would apply in the event of Mr Bemba's provisional release will be made known to
you and to the Court as soon as practicable"."^"* However, by the date the Impugned
Decision was issued, the Trial Chamber had not received any such information. More
importantly, [REDACTED] Observations did not make reference to the prior
conespondence between Mr Bemba and [REDACTED], or announce that
^ Impugned Decision, para. 59. ® Request for Interim Release to [REDACTED], paras 10-11; see also Document in Support of the Appeal, wherein reference is made to "[REDACTED] Guarantees". * Request for Interim Release to [REDACTED], title page.
^ Mr Bemba's Letter, page 4. " Mr Bemba's Letter, page 5. ^ [REDACTED] Letter, page 2.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 37/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 37/39 RH T OA7
[REDACTED] would submit shortly more documents and information. Therefore, it
is fully reasonable for the Trial Chamber to proceed without awaiting such
information.
16. The last enor alleged by the Mr Bemba relevant to this matter is that the Trial
Chamber omitted to ask for more information, including a guarantee. The question is
therefore, whether the Trial Chamber was under an obligation to request more
information, or even specifically a guarantee, from a state which shows its general
willingness to accept a person from the Court's detention centte on its territory. The
Trial Chamber evaluated all the facts before it and concluded under article
58 (1) (b) (i) of the Statute that there remained a risk that Mr Bemba would abscond,
should he be released to [REDACTED]. That there was no guarantee provided by
[REDACTED] was only one of many considerations in coming to this decision.
Considering that there is the need to decide a request for interim release "without
delay"^^ and that Mr Bemba may ask at any time for interim release under article 60
(3) of the Statute when changed circumstances so require, meaning that his rights are
not affected, I carmot find an enor in the Trial Chamber's decision to proceed without
requesting more information from [REDACTED].
17. Applying the relevant standard of review for alleged factual enors, I can discem
how the Trial Chamber came to its conclusion. I cannot therefore determine that there
was an enor of fact.
3. Other errors alleged under the first ground of appeal
18. Mr Bemba also alleged additional enors with respect to the evaluation of the
other facts taken into account by the Trial Chamber when making its decision. I agree
in this respect with the discussion and outcome of the evaluation of these enors by the
Majority (paragraphs 59 to 62 of the Judgment of the Majority).
C. Appropriate relief 19. As to the appropriate relief, I am of the view that the Impugned Decision should
be confirmed. I agree with the Majority that the Trial Chamber ened when finding
that Mr Bemba's detention was also necessary under article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the
Statute (second ground of appeal) for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 71 to 74 of
^ See rule 118 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 38/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 38/39 RH T OA7
the Judgment of the Majority. However, in my view, the Trial Chamber did not en
when finding that Mr Bemba's detention was necessary under article 58 (1) (b) (i) of
the Statute. Therefore, the enor relevant to article 58 (1) (b) (ii) of the Statute was
inconsequential to the Trial Chamber's decision to reject the Request for Interim
Release to [REDACTED].
Done in both English and French, the English version being authoritative.
Judge Anita Usacka
Dated this 19th of August 2011
At The Hague, The Netherlands
No: ICC-01/05-01/08 OA 7 39/39
ICC-01/05-01/08-1626-Red 12-09-2011 39/39 RH T OA7